I was in the Annapolis Record & Tape Traders store yesterday, one of my favorite stores. I had a bunch of CDs and DVDs (several from garage sales) that I wanted to trade for credit. R&T is great - they rarely refuse anything I bring in and they always have great stuff (new and used) to choose from. Yesterday was no exception.
One of the CDs I picked up was the new Rhonda Vincent disc All American Bluegrass Girl, which, despite what you might think of the cover, is a disc of mostly traditional bluegrass tunes. I've only listened to it once so far, but it's pretty good. The biggest disappointment is the playing time = 39:45.
I'm sorry, in this day and time, nobody should release a disc that's less than 45 minutes long. With few exceptions, I'd rather see an artist release discs less frequently with more time on them. At least you'd feel like you're getting your money's worth. (But I can't really complain, since this one didn't really cost me anything.)
I've always wished the price of the disc reflected the playing time of the disc. A CD with 78 minutes of music shouldn't cost the same as one with 30 minutes. I remember when the Stand By Me soundtrack came out. A friend of mine bought it and was enraged that it was less than 25 minutes long. And he probably paid $15.95 for it. (It's still under 25 minutes long. Amazon sells it new for $10.98.)
Changing the subject slightly, if you haven't heard, the music industry (as far as CD sales go) is in big trouble. People are downloading and burning discs from their friends like crazy and disc sales are tanking. If you haven't already, you'll start seeing discounts all over the place, especially at Amazon. But most of those are the mass-produced older releases by big name acts. If it's a popular artist you're really into, you're probably going to be in luck. But if you're looking for an indie or something really out there, it's unlikely you'll see any discounts.
But the music industry (like the movie industry...another topic for another time) still doesn't get it. Prices are still too high. Had I not traded for the Rhonda Vincent disc, I would have paid $13.99. That's $1.16 per song. I could go to iTunes and get each song for 99 cents (which isn't much better) or download the whole album for $9.99. A few weeks ago Cindy was looking for a certain classical CD. Amazon had it for $17.95, but she got it from iTunes for $9.99.
I don't know if it's just a matter of time before CDs become obsolete, but the record companies don't seem to be doing much to slow down the inevitable.
3 comments:
The recording industry is nearly 100 years old and NEVER has it welcomed disrputive technology. (I'm not counting CDs here because they work on the same sales principle as LPs, and they allowed record companies to recycle old recordings into a new, higher margin format: more money with essentially no extra work.)
And it's not just the recording industry. Organizations like ASCAP and BMI have done a laudable job getting musicians their due from the record companies, but they've done little and less to pressure them into protecting musicians' same due or expanding it through technology.
If either group had recognized the opportunity in selling songs over the Internet (low fixed costs and lots of operating leverage) instead of fighting the Internet or pretending it didn't exist, no one would be in the state we're in today with collapsing sales for albums by mid-tier and niche groups.
Wow, I guess I have some strong opinions on this.
Yeah, and CDs with less than 45 minutes of music on them are like the recent Robert Jordan books: they look just as big as the first ones but the typeface inside is nearly twice as big.
The record industry basically forces the artist to have a limited number of songs on the album.
Which is why the musicians with the most durable wealth don't make money from their mechanical rights (what they make when a song is sold on a CD). They make them from performance rights (when a song is broadcast on the radio or in a jukebox--when was the last time you saw a jukebox?--or covered by another band), which they can only receive if they are the "publisher" of the song.
This is why Barry Mannilow is one of the wealthiest cats in the music industry. (Not because of his unlikely capacity to fill arenas and concert halls with giggling 40+ women.)
Make your Barry Manilow jokes if you will, I had a friend who was a huge Mannilow fan and he had two tickets to a concert in an outdoor shell near Chiacago, and when his date backed out, didn't want to see the ticket go to waste.
With no expectations, other than hearing songs which I knew got lots of radio play, I was amazed at how tight and professional the show was. The energy was amazing and the house shook with the singing and dancing of the audience. That was around 1983 -- and he's still doing it.
So John is absolutely right about saying that performance has made a Barry Manilow wealthy. Deliver the goods and They Will Come.
Dr. Phil
Post a Comment